KORAN Vs. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point that arises for consideration in this Original Petition is whether the deemed suspension under R.67 (3) of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (for short, the Rules) will continue even after the teacher of an aided school ceases to be in custody and make him disentitled to receive his pay and allowances till the final termination of such proceedings. The petitioners in this Original Petition who are teachers of aided schools, were arrested by the Police, Chandera Police Station on 30th July 1974 and they were released on bail on the forenoon of 2nd August 1974. The case of the petitioners is that they were injured due to the assault of the Police and the 1st petitioner had to be admitted into the hospital. They aver that till the filing of the Original Petition on 8th November 1974 there was no information whether any charge sheet has been filed before the Magistrate's Court.

(2.) On 5th August 1974 the 1st respondent Assistant Educational Officer, Cheruvathur issued Ext. P3 letter to the 2nd respondent informing him that the 1st petitioner was arrested on the night of 30th July 1974 and the Sub Divisional Magistrate has remanded him till 13th August 1974. The 2nd respondent was also told that as per R.67(3) of Chap.14A of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, the 1st petitioner is to de deemed to have been under suspension. On receipt of Ext. P3 the 2nd respondent issued Ext P-4 proceedings dated 7th August 1974 suspending the 1st petitioner until further orders with effect from 31st July 1974. Ext. P5 is the communication, similar to Ext. P3, issued by the 1st respondent in the case of the 2nd petitioner suspending him under R.67(3) of the rules. Against the suspension orders the petitioners made representations. Ext. P6 is the representation of the 1st petitioner to the 1st respondent and Ext. P7 is its copy submitted to the 2nd respondent. Ext. P8 is the 2nd petitioner's representation to the 1st respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondents 1 and 2 are not passing orders on the above representations and hence the petitioners have no other choice but to continue under suspension, without even subsistence allowance.

(3.) The statement in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent is that as the petitioners were detained in custody for more than 48 hours they would be deemed to have been under suspension as per R.67(3) of Chap.14A of the rules. It is pointed out in. para 7 of the counter affidavit that the subsistence allowance is not paid since the petitioners have not produced the non employment certificate. The contention in para 8 is that the petitioners are not entitled to full pay and allowances during the period of suspension till the final termination of the proceedings against them.